First Post! Yahoo!
3917
Tony Long sounds like an idiot to me. His riding skills are lacking, but he blames the 'death trap' he rides. He apparently learned nothing from his previous "mishap."
Agree, but his point is valid. Cell phones should not be allowed to be used by drivers of moving vehicles, period. We had jammers back in Baghdad. I should have smuggled one home.
Yes, I agree that cell phones are an issue. In most states a DVD screen in the dash/front seating area is illegal. How did the GPS folks lobby around that one! ANOTHER SOURCE OF DISTRACTION!
Re: Found one!
Cool! I'll take one of them, a radar detector, one of them gadgets that changes the traffic lights to green and a larger alternator. The company I ordered the stealth field generator from still haven't delivered.
Cool! I'll take one of them, a radar detector, one of them gadgets that changes the traffic lights to green and a larger alternator. The company I ordered the stealth field generator from still haven't delivered.
I agree about the cell phones. I just hate to think somebody might think that dipstick is representative of motorcyclists.
A few months back I had the misfortune to visit a Biker Boyz style hop-up shop and saw a DVD player mounted in the tank cover of a sportbike. Although it was unique for a motorcycle, I think it was for parked entertainment unlike the units found in cars. The DVD players in cars are becoming more and more widespread and will continue to proliferate as prices fall. Will they lead to increased driver distraction? I think so.
I saw one of those at a bike show about 2 years ago. The guy making them was giving up his job to make them at $5K each. I can't imagine ever wanting something like that.
Then again, I can't imagine needing to answer my cell phone so badly that I can't take the time to pull over.
Then again, I can't imagine needing to answer my cell phone so badly that I can't take the time to pull over.
I concur ofreen. Tony, if you were able to stop short of Ms. Cellphone without hitting her with you on top of your downed bike, then you easily should have been able to stop with rubber side down/you in the seat provided of course that your brakes and tires were in good order. If they are, you might try actually learning how to brake. BTW, I can't agree more on your accessment of cell phone toting car drivers...maddening!
Everybody rants about cell phone use... that's just one possible distraction for a driver. Eating a hot burrito and have it drop steaming cheese in your lap, spilling your coffee, working on your hair, looking through the mail, trying to find the cigarette that dropped on the floor, or the ink pen, or running the laptop with GPS because you were too cheap to buy a car navigation system.... all of those are just as distracting. Good drivers know their first responsibility is to be a safe driver and handle cell phones, eating, smoking, etc as an ancillary task. I am against making using a cell phone illegal because it is very situation (and driver) dependent. Let's face it - there are some people that should not drive at all.
I guess I get to be "dipstick" for the day. I just couldn't take all the whining and excuses.
I agree. There are so many things that people do in their cars that distract from driving that it is impossible (and completely ineffective) to legislate them all. It's unfair to punish everyone because a few people are incompetent. And the incompetent are going to cause trouble no matter how many laws we pass. This is why passing laws is so ineffective at handling these sort of problems. Most people don't need these laws and the ones who do don't obey them anyhow.
I have a novel idea. Maybe the people who cause wrecks should be held responsible for them! Regardless of the "reasons".
I have a novel idea. Maybe the people who cause wrecks should be held responsible for them! Regardless of the "reasons".
He needs to watch the road ahead of him so he doesn't rear end anyone again. He is a dipstick.
If you can't expect the unexpected you have no place on a motorcycle.
If you can't expect the unexpected you have no place on a motorcycle.
Re: Found one!
Minnesota has on the books the law that if you are on a motorcycle, and the light is red, if you come to a stop, you can proceed through the red light. You may still get a ticket (i.e., if it was unsafe to do so), but your maneuver is defensible in court. Here's the statute:
NEW MINNESOTA RED LIGHT LAW
Sec. 42. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.06, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 9. [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RELATING TO UNCHANGING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL.]
(a) A person operating a motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;
(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;
(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the motorcycle; and
(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil or criminal action.
In Minneapolis, the cops have real crime. I've gone through a red in front of them (safely, of course, and after stopping), and they're cool with it.
Minnesota has on the books the law that if you are on a motorcycle, and the light is red, if you come to a stop, you can proceed through the red light. You may still get a ticket (i.e., if it was unsafe to do so), but your maneuver is defensible in court. Here's the statute:
NEW MINNESOTA RED LIGHT LAW
Sec. 42. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.06, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 9. [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RELATING TO UNCHANGING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL.]
(a) A person operating a motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;
(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;
(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the motorcycle; and
(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil or criminal action.
In Minneapolis, the cops have real crime. I've gone through a red in front of them (safely, of course, and after stopping), and they're cool with it.
I think cell phones are getting the brunt of the attention because, well, I see more people on cellphones as compared to eating or drinking when driving.
It may be an appearance/perception thing - whereas the food is usually only brought to the face for a bite, the cellphone remains there for the entire conversation (unless a handsfree is used).
Just think though: The person talking on a cellphone AND eating while driving is likely pissing off the other party as well as those around him LOL
It may be an appearance/perception thing - whereas the food is usually only brought to the face for a bite, the cellphone remains there for the entire conversation (unless a handsfree is used).
Just think though: The person talking on a cellphone AND eating while driving is likely pissing off the other party as well as those around him LOL
Goverll has a point. Same point I've repeatedly made everytime one of these incidents occurs. We can dumb down the driving process to the point that no actions not strictly defined as essential to driving the vehicle, will be permitted. Going down this road will require aggressive VTL enforcement and huge fines as a given. Human nature being what it is, the logical alternative would be redefining license issuance prerequisities, written and skills testing, so that folks can manage ancilliary driving behavior such as tuning a radio or talking on a hands free cell, without becoming distracted from the primary mission at hand. Driving requires complex nano-second judgements and associated hand/eye coordination. As with any behavior, but especially in highly-stressed circumstances, you will perform behind the wheel in accordance with rote behavior training patterns. In the absence thereof, you will panic. Current driver training and license issuance SOP simply doesn't address this dynamic. As such, the carnage will continue. Why? Because, as a society, we have rationalized that 60,000+ deaths a year is an acceptable trade-off for keeping the wheels of our economy rolling. That trade-off, among other things, includes huge license/registration fee revenues and the prerequisite easy-access, non-standards based license issuance for anybody who can manage to stand up straight.
I just got a mailing from the state EPA informing me that my father's drivers license will be suspended if he does not take his van to a testing station by February 1, 2006. My father has been dead since August 30, and the state has been so informed. The van in question has changed hands twice since then and the state has been so informed (it would be mighty hard to sell it without informing them). So much for the efficiency of state law enforcement.
More to the point, about four years ago I tried to get my father's driver's license suspended after he he had an accident (in a shower, not a car) resulting in second and third degree burns over about 20% of his body, and a six week hospital stay followed by months of physical and mental rehabilitation for conditions including severe dementia. After weeks of going around with the DMV and his doctor, I got him and the doctor to agree he would give up his license until he could pass a state drivnig test. The next week he got in the van and went to the DMV and passed the test. For about two years after this, he repeatedly got into fender-benders and parking lot scrapes, mostly because he could not see or sense motion around him well enough to tell where his vehicle was or what hazards were around him, even when those "hazards" were cars parked next to him in a parking lot (of which he sideswiped two that I know of and who knows how many that I don't). At one point during this time, he pulled up in front of my house, hit my car parked at the curb and put two wheels on the parkway while parallel parking, then argued with me about whether or not I was going to let him drive my children and me to dinner. Needless to say, I drove that evening -- and took him to the hospital the next day after he collapsed at his apartment.
It is only by luck and the grace of God that my father did not kill or severely injure someone during this period. His driving skills were obviously deficient. Yet they were somehow good enough to pass a state driving test.
While I tried repeatedly to get his license suspended or revoked during this time, I must admit I wasn't as aggressive as I might have been. On the other hand, the state was not at all cooperative, and the fact that he was able to pass the test suggests to me that the test is a joke. He was obviously incompetent to drive, yet the attempts of my brothers and sisters and me to do something about it were repeatedly thwarted until I basically stole his van to keep him from driving.
So I'm still wondering where was the state EPA when I needed them? And why is it you can get your license suspended for not getting your emissions test, but not for not being able to drive? Major cluster f*ck.
And oh, yeah -- if our columnist friend had to put his bike down to avoid colliding with a quick-stopping SUV, he needs some training or some work on his bike. Not that that excuses inattention on the part of the cell-phone wielding driver, but it's a given if you want to survive on a bike you need to be alert and keep your bike in good repair. You surely can't rely on law enforcement to keep incompetent drivers off the road.
More to the point, about four years ago I tried to get my father's driver's license suspended after he he had an accident (in a shower, not a car) resulting in second and third degree burns over about 20% of his body, and a six week hospital stay followed by months of physical and mental rehabilitation for conditions including severe dementia. After weeks of going around with the DMV and his doctor, I got him and the doctor to agree he would give up his license until he could pass a state drivnig test. The next week he got in the van and went to the DMV and passed the test. For about two years after this, he repeatedly got into fender-benders and parking lot scrapes, mostly because he could not see or sense motion around him well enough to tell where his vehicle was or what hazards were around him, even when those "hazards" were cars parked next to him in a parking lot (of which he sideswiped two that I know of and who knows how many that I don't). At one point during this time, he pulled up in front of my house, hit my car parked at the curb and put two wheels on the parkway while parallel parking, then argued with me about whether or not I was going to let him drive my children and me to dinner. Needless to say, I drove that evening -- and took him to the hospital the next day after he collapsed at his apartment.
It is only by luck and the grace of God that my father did not kill or severely injure someone during this period. His driving skills were obviously deficient. Yet they were somehow good enough to pass a state driving test.
While I tried repeatedly to get his license suspended or revoked during this time, I must admit I wasn't as aggressive as I might have been. On the other hand, the state was not at all cooperative, and the fact that he was able to pass the test suggests to me that the test is a joke. He was obviously incompetent to drive, yet the attempts of my brothers and sisters and me to do something about it were repeatedly thwarted until I basically stole his van to keep him from driving.
So I'm still wondering where was the state EPA when I needed them? And why is it you can get your license suspended for not getting your emissions test, but not for not being able to drive? Major cluster f*ck.
And oh, yeah -- if our columnist friend had to put his bike down to avoid colliding with a quick-stopping SUV, he needs some training or some work on his bike. Not that that excuses inattention on the part of the cell-phone wielding driver, but it's a given if you want to survive on a bike you need to be alert and keep your bike in good repair. You surely can't rely on law enforcement to keep incompetent drivers off the road.
Hey Seru, just read a story in the news yesterday about a 16 year old kid that was busy text-messaging someone, lost control of his SUV and killled a bicycle rider. It happened in Colorado. They said they won't prosecute the kid because he didn't mean it and wasn't paying attention. Like I always tell ya, if you're going to kill someone, kill em with the car. Be sure that you are doing something other than driving, so you can plead ignorance. It seems to work 100% of the time.
Interesting article snippet:
"Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have been the usual evasion tactic."
That is what happens when the rider is 'following too close' or 'not paying attention'. Can't ***** at the driver for not beiing attentive when you aren't.
" My choices: Dump the bike or visit her back seat."
You mean this guy is going the use the patented "edward44 lay er down' method of crash avoidance? Since he 'didn't have time' to drive around her, I wonder how he found time to execute the 'dump the bike' crash landing AND miss the stationary vehicle all at the same time.
"I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I never touched her."
So, he wasn't paying attention, hit the brakes too hard and fell down, and then didn't hit her anyway. I wonder how he missed her when he 'didn't have time' to steer around her? Did he somehow steer the bike clear while going ass over teakettle? How did he stop the bike in a shorter distance laying on his ass than on 2 wheels? This guy is better than eddie44 on his best day.
"I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket) and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than the bike itself is probably worth."
If I was this guy I'd sell the bike ASAP and consider thank God every day that I didn't die from my stupidity. This incident just shows what an unskilled rider does when confronted with a situation that requires trained reflexes. This guy makes us all look bad.
"Although I was at the speed limit, her stopping was so completely unexpected that I didn't have time to ride around her, which would have been the usual evasion tactic."
That is what happens when the rider is 'following too close' or 'not paying attention'. Can't ***** at the driver for not beiing attentive when you aren't.
" My choices: Dump the bike or visit her back seat."
You mean this guy is going the use the patented "edward44 lay er down' method of crash avoidance? Since he 'didn't have time' to drive around her, I wonder how he found time to execute the 'dump the bike' crash landing AND miss the stationary vehicle all at the same time.
"I hit the brakes and down I went, ass over teakettle. I never touched her."
So, he wasn't paying attention, hit the brakes too hard and fell down, and then didn't hit her anyway. I wonder how he missed her when he 'didn't have time' to steer around her? Did he somehow steer the bike clear while going ass over teakettle? How did he stop the bike in a shorter distance laying on his ass than on 2 wheels? This guy is better than eddie44 on his best day.
"I landed on top of the bike, fortunately, emerging with a badly bruised elbow (not to mention a rip in my leather jacket) and a pretty nasty welt on my upper thigh. The motorcycle got beaten up pretty good but everything was put right for about $400 -- more than the bike itself is probably worth."
If I was this guy I'd sell the bike ASAP and consider thank God every day that I didn't die from my stupidity. This incident just shows what an unskilled rider does when confronted with a situation that requires trained reflexes. This guy makes us all look bad.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
